[uucdigest] Thursday, August 28 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6704
_________________________________________________________________ | | Search the ARCHIVES: | http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Visit Richard Nott's Ultimate BMW Database: | http://www.bmwdatabase.com | | For all available Digest commands including unsubscribe/subscribe, | visit the BMW UUC Digest page: http://www.uucdigest.com | | Send SUBMISSIONS to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Complaints? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you must. | Technical Problems? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |__________________________________________________________________ In this BMW UUC Digest: [uuc] Took the Plunge - MCoupe RE: [uuc] RE: Someone hit my BMW! Advice sought... RE: [uuc] cam oil seal replacement [uuc] [update] Someone hit my BMW! Advice sought... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:58:15 -0400 From: "corbishley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Took the Plunge - MCoupe Well Gang. I finally did the dirty deed. The 2000 MCoupe is mine. White, 12k miles, AA S/C, Brembo fronts, FK Coilovers all around. I can't believe my good luck. John Corbs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:49:05 -0400 From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] RE: Someone hit my BMW! Advice sought... Diminished value is a valid claim. Unfortunately, it's also a state by state thing on whether it's allowed or not. As far as I can tell, Ohio does NOT allow diminished value to play a part in an insurance claim, while NY does. Brett Anderson KMS > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dennis Liu > cheaper, maybe $3000 cheaper, maybe $5000 cheaper. Whatever that > difference > is, that difference IS THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:33:24 -0400 From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] cam oil seal replacement The simple way to check if the cam seal is leaking is to remove the distributor cap, rotor and plastic shield. 10 minutes work. If you don't find oil behind the shield, then your cam seal is not leaking. If it is leaking, then you simply unbolt the seal carrier from the head and throw it away. Get a new seal carrier, carrier O ring, and cam seal, from your BMW dealer. Knock the seal into the carrier with a hammer, install the O ring and install the carrier in the head. Once upon a time, I'd have said knock the seal out of the old carrier, but the last two that I tried that with ended with seal carriers that were broken in two...... Brett Anderson KMS > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of igor koruga > I have a small oil leak/drip by cylinder #1 on my 86 > 325. It was suggested to me that cam oil seal might be > leaking ( I looked and can not determine with > certainty if it is head gasket or oil cam seal). I am > tying to plan for all the tools/parts that I will need > if indeed it is bad cam seal ( I will also change > water pump and timing belt while I am in there). My > question is : do I really need press (as stated in > Bentley) to seat cam oil seal and o-ring in the seal > housing? If not how else can I do it? This will be my > first time doing this, so any tips and tricks are > greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:00:31 -0700 (PDT) From: John Hovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] [update] Someone hit my BMW! Advice sought... Fellow Bimmerheads -- Thanks all for the many replies, both on and off the forum. I'll try to summarize (who am I kidding -- this is very long) what I have learned here for the benefit of other forum members. First off, to clarify a few things. I mentioned I might spend about $200 on the car to *mitigate* the visible damage. This would *not* restore my M3 to its pre-loss condition. I would probably get a body shop to sand off and apply some touch-up paint to the license plate screw holes (from the other car) so at least the bumper appears a uniform color. I would reposition the bumper cover myself. If a shock was damaged, I would replace it with OEM (and those suckers are $250 each). With rock chips on the front end, and a few other minor cosmetic blemishes, it seems silly to spend 4 figures making the rear bumper *perfect*. Though I care about it very much, it's not a showroom car, it's a daily driver. As someone else mentioned, it may get hit again. Second misconception -- I am not *any* less entitled to the full monetary amount of the damages if I decide to do partial or no repairs, or heck, fix it myself. I have got the feeling a lot of people think I am "cheating" the insurance company or making unfair "demands" by simply pocketing a check and doing lesser or no repairs. As far as I can tell, this is what the (California) law says. And of course this is no free lunch -- the value of the car will be less when it comes time to sell. Third misconception -- regarding estimates. At least in California, the preparation of written estimates appears to be highly regulated. Without exception, all of the body shops I have ever visited in my entire life write estimates based on the damage they see. Even if it is *very likely* but not visually apparent that a part is damaged, they will not bill for it on the estimate. Supplements are a standard occurance once repairs are under way. Of course there are judgement calls (repair vs. replace) and variables (labor rate), but if an estimator follows these rules and acts rationally, I would imagine it is very hard to find his estimate "padded" or inaccurate. As I mentioned in the last email, the differences in cost arose from repair/replace decisions, labor rate differences, and painting methods. Parts missing from the Farmer's estimate I think can be attributed to honest neglect. Moving on, it seems the replies I have gotten are divided into two camps. The first camp has argued I am entitled to the cost of repairs at the shop of my choosing (also California law) -- in my case $1255, and also the *reasonable* cost of rental of the damaged equipment (more on this later). The second camp has said Farmer's is essentially just in offering me their own estimate (leaving alone the fact they left off some parts, and of course the possibility that it may cost more to repair if additional damages are found). Amusingly -- and please do forgive me for finding this amusing -- it would seem an undue proportion of the members of this camp claim to be in the insurance industry or are actually claims adjustors, and sound very much like claims adjusters, or at least the ones I've been talking to :). Now to throw some more gas on the fire <devil grin>. I said I would talk more about the cost of rental. Farmer's has offered me $25/day to obtain a rental, non-negotiable, barely enough to rent a Geo Metro or equivalent, at least here in pricy California. Additionally, if I do not choose to repair the vehicle, I get no rental, period. I talked to my own insurance representative, who happily gave me some ammo to use on Farmer's. The following is an actual argument he used to *sucessfully* subrogate rental car expenditures from another insurance company here in California when his customer was without his 2000 Audi A6 2.7T. It makes reference to a 1948 California court case. "The law, in Malinson v. Black, is very clear. The case stands unequivocally for the proposition that the "cost of loss of use is based on the reasonable rental value of *the* property damaged." The emphasis can be put on "the property damaged." The court is not talking about *some* property damaged, or *something like* the property damaged, or anything else. The court talked about "the" reasonable rental value of "the" property damaged. In my case, "the" property damaged was a 2000 Audi A6 2.7T. So, the ONLY inquiry is, what is "the" reasonable rental value of an Audi A6 2.7T, and not anything else, because that is "the" property damaged. NO other measure is at issue! Not a Ford Taurus, not a mid-level car, not ANYTHING else. "THE" property damaged was an Audi A6 2.7T; so, what is the reasonable rental value of "THE" property damaged translates to "what is the reasonable rental value of "an Audi A6 2.7T?" End of story." > This is taken out of California Law > > Determining the reasonable compensation when the party rents another > vehicle is easily based on the cost of the rental. In cases where the party > does > not rent another vehicle and is simply without the use of the vehicle the > courts have held that the loss can be measured by the cost of a reasonable > rental. Malinson v. Black (1948) 83 Cal.App2d 375. The cost of loss of use > is based on the reasonable rental value of the property damaged, whether or > not a rental is obtained. OK. It's John talking again. Note (as this corresponds with my second listed misconception at the beginning) -- it is irrelevant whether I actually pursue or obtain a rental vehicle or simply deal with my loss of use of that vehicle. So, now the next logical question is "what is the reasonable rental value of a 1995 BMW M3"? Well, I can't find anyone who rents one. I can find (somewhat) similar cars (3 series, albeit newer), M roadsters (completely different car) and some other BMW's. Most rent for in the range of $200-250/day exclusive of mileage @ $.50 a mile. Now, you may be asking yourself *is this reasonable*? I guess the bottom line is that's for a judge to decide. I checked many rental companies and this was the best price I found. I believe "reasonable" in this case would be *the*, or close to *the*, competitive market price. For fun, I added up the cost of my preferred repair ($1255.39) plus rental of a BMW 325 (I also did a M roadster for comparison) for one week (just a guess, but at the rate Farmers seems to move, I bet it would take them longer than that just to get an adjuster to the shop), plus lost wages arising from having to drive 30 miles to have the car appraised (as an aside, it is also apparently illegal for an insurance company to require you to travel to have your car estimated, although I have not yet confirmed this) plus .35 cents a mile. The grand total came out to $2679.53. So now, which do I deserve? $683.73? $2679.53? Something in the middle? Well, I guess as the old saying goes, you don't always get what you deserve -- you get what you negotiate. I have put in several calls to Farmer's branch manager (who hasn't returned any of them). However, when I do hear from him, I am going to present my case (citing California law on each item) and let him know I am prepared -- which I am -- to take the defendant to small claims court. We'll see where it goes from there. In anticipation of the responses I might get from those who thought I was out of line to ask for $1255, let me make this brief (you know I'm lying now) defense. Yes, I realize a late model 325 and an M roadster are completely different cars with completely different values (different from my '95 M3 for sure). I used these simply because I could not find *better* comparables, and will happily accept an alternative comparable -- at an alternative price -- if presented to me. I think I am being reasonable in at least asking for a BMW -- the 325 is the cheapest one I could find. As far as repairs go -- I have gotten some responses on this board to the effect that of repair is a repair, end of story. I think this is fairly easy to disprove. Obviously, quality of work depends greatly upon who is doing the work and their methods of repair. If repairs were repairs, well, we'd all get out oil changed at Jiffy-Lube for $9.95, wouldn't we? Likewise, high-end body shops would be out of business pretty quickly. I did not buy an expensive BMW to have it repaired with non-OEM parts or stuffed full of bondo, just because there is a body shop willing to write an estimate to do just that for a good price. I have read up extensively on "pre loss condition" -- the vague three words that describe what nearly every carrier plans to return your car to. As advice to others who bothered to read this far -- I would highly encourage you to check your own insurance contract. I just read all 63 pages of mine. I don't think you would be very happy if you ever had to make a claim, and you then found out your insurance company wanted to have your beautiful BMW frankensteined together with used/recycled junkyard parts. To me this makes no sense. If you have a car you care about, get insurance that provides all OEM parts and decent quality repair work. I guess this sounds obvious after typing it out, but I think I know many people who own very expensive cars and simply sign up with the lowest rate carrier. In a liability case, I can't imagine that the defendant's carrier would dare to do any less. Here is some additional info on this subject: http://info.insure.com/auto/collision/oemrights.html And, if your guff with my methods is that I am driving up the cost of insurance for everyone with these tactics, my answer is simple: We live in a competitive market economy. I am a fool to accept anything less than I can legally get. Not to sound harsh, but nice guys don't finish first. If you believe the insurance industry is out-of-hand (as I happen to believe) then write your local congressman or other civil servant and ask for the laws to be changed. I believe this is a non-issue, anyways. Most of the increase in auto insurance over the years has arisen from generous settlements to accident victims. Either don't use Farmers Insurance or rest assured that their tight-fisted claims adjusters are actually saving you money in the end, since barely no one I'm sure is willing to go through this hassle to get a fair settlement. Lastly, as a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer (although, after learning all this neat stuff, I am beginning to wish I were one) and the above is based on my experience and I might be a total moron spewing partially or completely inaccurate information, and to the extent that I am, I am truly sorry. I encourage all to correct, revise, append or respond to what I have written, and look forward to you all doing so. (I wonder if a single person has bothered to read this far... ;-)) Best, John ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6704 *************************** | | In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. |________________________________________ | Please visit these UUC-approved BMW parts vendors/service providers: | (listed alphabetically) | | Autoscope-Motorsports - http://www.autoscope-motorsports.com | |==================================================== | | Koala MotorSport . BMW technical information, special tool sales/rental | http://www.koalamotorsport.com | |==================================================== | | Taylor BMW - http://www.taylorbmw.com - Doc Bimmer! | |==================================================== | Turner Motorsport Inc . The Ultra-High Performance BMW Specialist | 207 Elm Street, Amesbury, MA 01950 | 978-388-7769 / fax 978-388-4202 | http://www.turnermotorsport.com | |==================================================== | | UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning | and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! | 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com |__________________________________________________________
